Our Answer at WR, not what you think ...
I have NOT been on the Crabtree bandwagon at all. I also have not wanted any of the aging former stars to be brought in taking time away from our young guys. I have instead looked to draft a WR in the later rounds specifically Ramses Barden a tall WR to give JMarc a red zone target to bring along and allow Chaz and JLH to continue to improve.
Well that changed today, sort of.
I still dont want to draft Crabtree or sign Marvin or Holt.
I DO WANT THE RAIDERS TO SIGN MATT JONES, YES MATT JONES.
Matt Jones brings the following qualities:
1. Speed. Guy can flat move(something Al loves). Ran sub 4.4
2. Size. 6'6" receiver to give JMarc that much needed red zone target to compliement Miller.
3. Age. Still only 25 (will be 26 next month)
4. League Experience. "Experts" say it takes WR's 3 years to really understand the NFL game. Matt is entering his 5th year, and has improved every year.
5. Cheap. Was only going to be making 565K this year so it shouldn't break the bank to sign him to a 3 plus year contract.
Yes Matt Jones got busted for Cocaine and then violated probation for being drunk, but Al doesn't mind a checkered past if they can help the Raiders WIN.
So here is the "unofficial" SIGN MATT JONES thread.
It would allow the Raiders to focus on the best available Defensive player still on the board at #7, whether that be Orakpo, Raji or whoever AL believes will help us get back to the playoffs.
Let me say it one more time SIGN MATT JONES ASAP !!!
0 recs |
58 comments
Comments
There is one lingering problem...
He isn’t good.
by posey440 on Mar 16, 2009 7:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I think he was really starting to put it together this year even with the Jags lack of O Line and QB play
by Bud Light on Mar 16, 2009 7:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i'm kind of intrigued
but i’d only take him if he got one of those khalif barnes low-risk type deals…
Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!!
by naq92 on Mar 16, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jones is no good
“…lack of o line and qb play.” If we signed him, he would be in the exact same scenario. We are working on those issues, but as of know, its not one of our strengths.
At the pace Jones is improving, he will be a stud by his 10th year. He might be a decent pickup if he were cheap and a complimentary receiver. But crabtree is worth the risk and too good to pass up. anytime you get a shot at “the best player in the draft” you gotta grab them.
by gl12ox05 on Mar 17, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, but not a long term deal
Jones is definitely an Al Davis type talent. He was the Jags’ most consistent receiver last season, which isn’t saying much, and when he’s actually got his head in the game he’s a force to be reckoned with.
Still, you don’t give a guy with this kind of baggage and a guaranteed 1-2 game suspension a multi-year deal. Give him whatever minimum contract you can, invite him to camp, and tell him that he’ll be out of Alameda faster than he can say “Yay Area” if he screws up again.
Spreading Brinkleyanity to the Raider Nation
by LiveAdam on Mar 16, 2009 7:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would'nt mind
He is pretty good at getting up, but I have not given up on Drew Carter yet. Resign him.
"It's 20-0. The Raider offensive game plan just changed." - Tom Flores
by Rayder K on Mar 16, 2009 10:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
NOPE!
I would rather get an old WR who has been proven to be good and can give him a fair deal and bring our numbers up. I think if the Raiders were to get Matt Jones then it would let us draft my favorite player other than Michael Crabtree in the draft which is “The Monster” Brian Orakpo. But I still say that Michael Crabtree would be the player who will give us the best help in the draft. If there is any WR I would get in free agency right now it would be Jerry Porter, because I would want to see him back in Silver and Black. Plus I would say Jerry Porter is way better than Matt Jones (Am I right). My final say would be, sign Jerry Porter, and draft Michael Crabtree.
by L.A. Raiders on Mar 16, 2009 11:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If i could, I'd de-rec
or negative rec.
No offense, but he’s garbage. Not worth the trouble.
"..what you mean? I'm a legend like Kareem!"
by CommittedToExcellence on Mar 16, 2009 11:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thats all we need
Jones and Walker hanging out together in Vegas
"May the wind be at our back, here comes the Silver and Black "
by RUKidding on Mar 17, 2009 4:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
imagine that
Walker pulls out the dollar stacks while Jones tries to one up him pulling out the Cocaine stash… interesting.. lol
I like to believe my best HITS border on Felonious ASSAULT
-Jack Tatum
by DarksideJU08 on Mar 17, 2009 4:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yet another sign that we are closer and closer to getting crabtree. THANK GOD!!!
Defensive tackle william joseph resigned with the team. the coaches and al seem to believe in him, yet he has not resigned drew carter and he asked walker to take a pay cut. does anyone see the chips falling the same way i do?
by posey440 on Mar 17, 2009 11:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't mean to jump on you Posey!
But I can’t help it William Joseph is Tommy Kelly’s back up what does that have to do with anything?
by DarthDavis on Mar 17, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
With the drafting of Manu and Parker and the signing of Oberto, the International Basketball era began in San Antonio. showing that all of the world's people can, in fact, come together in peace and harmony. After all, every nationality loves to kick the Hornets' asses.
by KA1Z3R on Mar 17, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes but
I’m starting to think the Bengals might actually draft him. That’s just me but you have to admit there’s a strong possibility they might.
With the drafting of Manu and Parker and the signing of Oberto, the International Basketball era began in San Antonio. showing that all of the world's people can, in fact, come together in peace and harmony. After all, every nationality loves to kick the Hornets' asses.
by KA1Z3R on Mar 17, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I was feeling last
week, and I don’t know why… it’s just a hunch I have.
I like to believe my best HITS border on Felonious ASSAULT
-Jack Tatum
by DarksideJU08 on Mar 17, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thikn they will becasue
i think Ocho only has one more year on his contract and we might see him get traded on draft day (another hunch of mine) Coles isn’t as good as he used to be, and Henry is one violation away from a year-long suspension. I bet you they’ll draft Crabtree.
"VoilĂ ! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V"- V from "V for Vendetta"
by KA1Z3R on Mar 17, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I hate to say it
The Chiefs would be a great fit for Crabtree, Cassel has a noodle arm and those quick passes he throws are perfect for Crabtree to use his tackle breaking ability. And with Larry Johnson being pushed out they could use an additional offensive weapon.
Also, the Rams could use another WR with Bennett, Holt, Randy McMichael (I think) and Bruce (last year) are all gone. Donnie Avery and his would make a pretty impressive pair of WR’s. And I thought Alex Barron was moving over to LT also, so that would lead me to think that they are not taking a LT.
by DarthDavis on Mar 17, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my opinion
I would like jones, if for competition and a possible roster spot. I don’t think he’s that bad and he could be a good #3 receiver giving us a fairly solid receiver group (if Schilens and Higgins continue this level of play) I’d still like a fourth round guy though. Mainly Ramses Barden or the name EVERYONE seems to forget, Demetrius Byrd!!! Dude is insanely fast and would round off the receivers very well. Have Shields, Schilens, Higgins, and Byrd together with Walker/Watkins playing fifth man sounds really good to me. My only problem there is we still lack a possession guy. That’s why I’m still pulling for a Toomer signing.
With the drafting of Manu and Parker and the signing of Oberto, the International Basketball era began in San Antonio. showing that all of the world's people can, in fact, come together in peace and harmony. After all, every nationality loves to kick the Hornets' asses.
by KA1Z3R on Mar 17, 2009 1:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the bengals are a no go
They have 2 veteran receivers in ocho cinco and lavernius coles and a 2 2nd year receivers they just drafted. if they traded ocho cinco, then there is a possibility, but im not loosing any sleep over them taking crabs. They will probably pick orakpo or raji if he is there.
And the william joseph signing means we have 4 defensive tackles on roster, usually that is the maximum a team carries. And if we were going to release warren or sands or ask them to take a pay cut we would have already done it.
by posey440 on Mar 17, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
So we can have a big glaring hole in our Roster so every team can know who we are going to draft?
Also William Joseph’s contract is a hair above the league minimum I am sure.
by DarthDavis on Mar 17, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it was such a problem position...
It would have already been addressed. That is why. We would have went after colin cole or ronald fields or grady jackson. And if defensive tackle is such a huge need then why did we ask gibril wilson, justin fargas and javon walker to take pay cuts and not ask kelly or sands or warren?
We have already done what you seem to think is idiotic. we asked gibril wilson to take a pay cut, he said no, so we cut him and now we have a huge need at strong safety and everyone knows we are going to either draft or bring in a strong safety. and dont tell me huff is a strong safety because he can’t tackle well enough and doesnt’t have the bulk for the position. and branch is the same size and in my guesses is who we want to replace huff with at free safety.
by posey440 on Mar 17, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"If it was such a problem position it would have been addressed earlier"
Did we do that with QB when we took J-Russ, and who are you to say that, you don’t really know that and how could you? Maybe your right and maybe your wrong but you seem to assert such potentials as factual way tooo often. Colin Cole, Ronald Fields, and Grady Jackson don’t differ much from our current stop gap DT’s in Warren and Sands. So why would we go after them? Wilson was released because he was unhappy in Oakland and we were unhappy with his versatility he gave up way too many TD’s and I am assuming was a little too vocal about Kiffin’s departure. I am pretty certain Huff is going back to SS (the whole #1 pass D thing may have something to do with it, as he contained every TE he ever covered), Branch may see some starting time at FS. But I don’t really know any of these its just speculation. But again you posit the affirmative way too much in what is mere speculation on our parts.
by DarthDavis on Mar 17, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Byrd has been a total sleeper as of late good call!
by DarthDavis on Mar 17, 2009 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the draft...
If we don’t get Michael Crabtree, I would think we draft Brian Orakpo, because personally I don’t like B.J. Raji. Raji has some real short arms, plus I think that in the NFL he would just be a average DT. Plus like posey440 said, we already have 4 DT’s.
Other WR’s we can get in later rounds:
(they are not in any type of oder)
1. Ramses Barden
2. Darrius Heyward-Bey(If not picked in first round)
3. Deon Butler
4. Juaquin Iglesias
5. Patrick Turner
6. Demir Boldin
7. Jordan Norwood
8. Hakeem Nicks(If not taken in first round)
by L.A. Raiders on Mar 17, 2009 2:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Arman Shields
Does anyone remember this guy and how bad he killed the combine last year, I know he has been recovering from injuries in consecutive years. But if he can stay healthy he may just have one of the best bursts off the line in the league, the kid has Welker like quickness. I was really hoping this thread would be about him. But if you guys don’t know do some research on Arman Shields because him and Chaz were about as good a draft picks as Michael Bush.
by DarthDavis on Mar 17, 2009 3:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Workout Warrior
Last season, Al davis said he almost picked vernon gholston because he too had an amazing combine. But he realized that mcfadden was too much to overlook and was the best player available. ad it didnt matter who the raiders already had at the position because they cant do what mcfadden can do. And guess what happened? gholston didnt do anything and mcfadden is a key part of our offense.
Sounds awful familiar to this year…BJ raji was unheard of until the senior bowl and had a great combine and it looks like he might be available when the raiders pick. But there is a player who is too much to overlook who looks like he will be there too named michael crabtree. and yeah the raiders have 2 young guys who look like they will be pretty good nfl receivers in higgins and schilens. but they cannot do what crabtree can do.
And as for shields, he is a slot if anything this next season. and you already said he has been injured the last 2 seasons.
by posey440 on Mar 17, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Posey I don't know where to begin with you :)
Your obviously a passionate Raider fan like myself so thats what makes these types of blogs great. McFadden was equally as much a workout warrior as Gholston. But what does that have to do with anything, you would be the first person I have read anything about stating Raji as a workout warrior. Raji was unheard of? He was arguably the most dominate lineman in college football this year. 16 tackles for loss and 8 sacks while facing a double team most of the year, those are better numbers then Gholston had against a single defender. If teams went after only players that scored TD’s they wouldn’t have a good team. “It all starts and ends with the trenches”…..you know who said that? John Madden! And for your information the WR’s outside of the top 10 have produced at a higher ratio then WR’s inside the top 10. I am not calling Crabtree a bust, but I am saying that great WR’s can be had later in the draft, the same is often not said for Big Defensive Lineman. Bill Parcells has a planet theory…a rough paraphrase “there are only so many big men in the planet and if you find one with top talent and the skill set to suceed you take them” hence, WR’s are a dime a dozen not DT’s. I’m not hating on you for liking Crabtree, because I do as well and would be stoked if he ends up being a Raider, but your reasoning is askew all over the place brother!
by DarthDavis on Mar 17, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you
But what you and I think are only academic exercises anyway. The simple fact is that Al is not going to draft Crabtree or Maclin in the first round. As someone mentioned earlier Shields is on the roster and he didn’t get injured so much last year as he did the year earlier and was recovering from that injury. He is tall, very fast and very skilled which makes drafting Crabtree a waste of a pick, not to mention how much money Crabtree would cost.
I hope the Raiders go defense, and suspect they will since there will be 4 or 5 talented defensive players on the board when the Raiders draft. It is not like Al to draft a linebacker that high so suspect he will draft a tackle or pass rushing end, Raji? Ayers? Browne? no idea.
by Laoren on Mar 17, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both Of You Guys
Posey and DarthDavis. Amazing argument. I can’t disagree with anyone. Both of you guys know what you guys are talking about which is an honor to read. But you already know who i agree with more. Darthdavis because we share a love for Raji. He is the most dominate lineman in the draft. We all know he is going to be beastly because he does have a great work ethic.
"It's 20-0. The Raider offensive game plan just changed." - Tom Flores
by Rayder K on Mar 17, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All right thats it. Im gonna win this argument...
The offense was worse than the defense. Why draft defense when we cant score? i am not happy with leading the league in 3 and outs and only 22 offensive touchdowns. The run defense is a by product of our 27th ranked time of possession, not the players on the field. And by replacing 1 guy on the defense how much better will our 31st ranked run d be? Think about it- a nose tackle has more of an impact than a receiver? This is one pick we are fighting over. This pick will not make us an elite defense but it could take our offense over the top. Ill take warren and sands over arman shields(zero stats in the nfl and barely any his senior year) and javon walker any day of the week and twice on sunday.
And you did not know about raji because he suspended last season and didnt play, so unless you were a devout boston college fan you didnt hear his name until mike mayock started blabbing it on nfl network.
And the whole trenches saying is an over used cliche. The colts horrible in run offense and run defense and they were 12 and 4. the giants were the best rush offense and a top run d, and they lost in the first round of the playoffs because manning didnt have plaxico. The steelers run defense did alot when fitzgerald was running with the ball towards the end zone. And who saved the steelers? good ole first round pick santonio holmes. And the dolphins were a great story with parcells running the team, but who got open for them when they played the ravens in the playoffs?
Look the whole run d and run o will get some wins and everyone will be happy until there comes a time to make a play on 3rd and 9 and we dont have that guy.
And huff sucks and his coverage was good enough earn him a bench spot. Why did we bring in gibril in the 1st place if huff was so good at ss?
And if we were going to address d tackle what is he waiting for? we already had a ss who was second on the team in tackles and he released him. If d tackle was our biggest need then why did we create another hole before filling that supposed one? Because im guessing al doesnt think dt is a weakness.
But thank god everyone is pumping up raji so now he will be gone before we pick.
by posey440 on Mar 17, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think too simplistically
You start with last years offense < to last years defense……so we have to use #7 on a WR? You are not taking into account injuries, player development, and promising young players on the roster. A nose tackle is the most important position for stopping the run hands down and our guys suck. Warren is a UT and Sands should not be getting support from any knowledgeable raider fan for reasons stated elsewhere. I thought he had it but obviously this year there were no excuses and he proved himself to be a sorry one at that.
So Crabtree makes us an elite offense, more so then Raji would the defense and right away, even though the offense was soooo much worse off then last years defense? I agree Crabtree is a great prospect at WR but he is not superman dog, c’mon you are putting him in and his position in this strange outside of argument box. And the fact is that it is not the case. You point to scrub FA DT’s and go why not go after them, when there are solid veteran FA WR’s out there that will benefit J-Russ and our young Wr’s with their experience and play.
Its true DT’s don’t score TD’s, but they stop TD’s from happening. I seriously doubt the Steelers would have been in any position to win the superbowl if they had Sands playing NT instead of Hampton. We have the TD makers, but we don’t have a guy to stop teams from running it down our throats time and time again, all the while blatantly ignoring our pass coverage (which is a major upside to our team).
Your 3rd down stuff is annoying, the top NT’s in the league don’t come out on 3rd downs because the command a double team every play. And Raji packs a wicked pass rush on top of that and being double teamed.
My opinion about Wilson was and is (I think a really good one at that to, it took me a while to see it and I suspect the same for others) Mr. Davis wanted to address the run D and Huff wasn’t cutting it outside of coverage. So he moved Huff to FS for coverage purposes and Wilson to SS. The result was it opened another hole for QB’s to throw to due to Wilson’s inability to successfully shut down any TE, evidence of this was the D had Nnamdi was covering Gonzo ( the second time around) against the Chefs instead of Wilson. So we had a “run stuffer” at SS, the result was the 31st worse run D in the league and our Pass D went down extremely. So in the spirit of experiment I think it would be safe to say that SS is not a place that should be focused on if you would like to stop the run. I am not concerned with Huff at SS, because he at least managed to make his coverage assignment obsolete to opposing QB’s. And why would you pay a guy 5.5 more million dollars given the argument above, it puts a whole new light toward the Wilson release, and Mr. Davis has proved this whole offseason that he is no “Crazy Al.” He is making intelligent move after intelligent move, you have to think broader to find these reasons, and it sometimes takes thinking about them in a different way then the obvious.
“And if we were going to address d tackle what is he waiting for?” – My guess is B.J. Raji but don’t go telling everyone we don’t want teams to jump us and take who we want, and the FA’s are really garbage in this department outside of Tank Johnson. “we already had a ss who was second on the team in tackles and he released him” Because our Run D was still bad, maybe even worse and why because you stop the Run at the line of scrimmage not 10 yards behind it. “If d tackle was our biggest need then why did we create another hole before filling that supposed one?” I have no clue what this means. “Because im guessing al doesnt think dt is a weakness.” Look at your investments and look at the result
Warren 5 mil and Sands 3-4 mill, they result Run D sucks, and people are rightful in saying Morrison looks out of place at time, but he has yet to have a true run-stopping powerhouse, consistent, talented NT in front of him. Give him Raji and we will have a better analysis of him and his placement when his contract is up next offseason. Again and this is the biggest tell all of them all. Tommy Kelly was being double teamed over Warren and Sands the majority of the time last year. You would think that Warren and Sands would produce better under those circumstances due to NT’s generally demanding the double team but they didn’t, B.J. Raj commands the double team and excels at it. Our current NT’s are disrespected by opponents in their offensive line assignments and don’t even bother to focus on because they are garbage! I would like to see Sands cut for Tank Johnson and then Warren’s 5.5 million dollar salary dumped after we pick up Raji to give us some cap room after the draft to tie this whole offseason together with some cap casualties from elsewhere. I am not sure who these guys will be but they will be there.
by DarthDavis on Mar 18, 2009 5:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The first post to actually make sense. I dont know why everyone in here has such false hopes thinking that the most talented player in the draft is going to fall to #7. There are 5 teams ahead of the Raiders that would salivate at the opportunity to draft Crabtree. He will not fall to 7. Raji is a stud and a difference maker. He would defniitely make the entire defense better. He needs to be signed. Not to mention, with Russells development going slower than most had hoped, Crabtree wouldnt make the instant impact everyone is hoping he would. Raji would be an immediate starter and contributer.
by BFFL on Mar 18, 2009 6:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who are the 5 teams that would salivate?
The 6 teams that are drafting ahead of the Raiders all have far bigger needs then wide receiver. This is more so the case after two of those teams expensive free agent WR acquisitions, namely Seattle and Cincinnati. If Raji is the stud that you are claiming, then he will certainly be gone before #7 making this whole exercise moot.
Your team is your child...You love it no matter what.
by TheRaiderWay on Mar 18, 2009 6:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I personally see Raji only fitting the Bengals who have not addressed their OL
Your right I am hoping the Chiefs (especially with their 3-4) and the Seahawks don’ take him, but with that said I really see Raji on the board at #7 without my preference for drafting him.
1. Eugene Monroe
2. Jason Smith
3. Aaron Curry
4. Stafford or Sanchez
5. Crabtree (there has been a ton of speculation that the Browns have been filling Defensive needs all FA to target Offensive players to help Quinn)
6. RAK or the Raj Mahal
7. RAK or the Raj Mahal
I could see Crabtree going to St. Louis, K.C., Seattle, Cleveland (thats my sleeper pick in the top 10 that most aren’t calling)
by DarthDavis on Mar 18, 2009 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
But at the same time, I can also see Raji going to St. Louis, K.C. Seattle or Cleveland. And to speculate, Cleveland, with their “Shaun Rogers” problem, might end up trading Rogers and then draft Raji.
Your team is your child...You love it no matter what.
by TheRaiderWay on Mar 18, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
We really don’t know as there are no clear picks in the top 7, but I really don’t see Raji warranting a top 3 pick like I see Crabtree doing so or Stafford or Monroe or Smith. I think all 4 should go in the top 5, with Curry there as well, which would leave RAK and RAJ to us and the Bengals, but as you look closer at the Bengals they have serious needs at OT, so I could see this being the landing spot for Andre Smith, even though all the offseason stuff that has come up as late, no one can deny that he was the most dominate OT in college football last year and should not fall out of the top 10 regardless.
by DarthDavis on Mar 18, 2009 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make some excellent points
However, you continually refer to the fact that B.J. Raji “commands the double team”. He has yet to play a down of NFL football, so we don’t know that he will command the double team, you are making an assumption. These were the same claims being made last year at this time about Dorsey and we know how that worked out.
I’m not qualifying any of our current DT’s based on their performance in the Rob Ryan system. Rob Ryan proved to be a terrible use of talent evaluator and rarely used his available talent to the best of their abilities or put them in the best position to succeed.
Your team is your child...You love it no matter what.
by TheRaiderWay on Mar 18, 2009 6:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point
But the fact that he excelled under the double team is the best indicator we can ask for that he will command it, and at 330 with feet as light as his and an incredibly strong upper body it is a safer assumption then not. Dorsey is a UT not a NT.
And good point about Ryan’s defense but I am not sold on either of these guys and in my opinion they are stop gaps and a waste of roster space. Unless we reduce Warren’s salary and move him to UT where is his “natural” position.
by DarthDavis on Mar 18, 2009 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm also not on the crabtree wagon
still if its a choice of JONES and CRABTREE
take crabtree hands down
jones is young crabs is younger
jones is baggage crabs is a rookie
the better talent is in crabtree
so if we can GET EM!!!
jones has to be a bargain to be signed
by bizy_b on Mar 17, 2009 5:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Other needs
Hey I’m new here, and because I’m not a Raiders fan first, I’m not sure of the fan concensus on a couple things. What about the offensive line? Are you all sure that Henderson / Barnes will work out in the long run at LT? And will the loser of the training camp battle be a shoe-in at RT? I’ve heard that Pears was ok, but would benefit greatly from the ZBS.
In the draft, atleast at the 7th pick, I can only imagine a few guys who could step in and play effectivly in the ZBS. That is Jason Smith and Micheal Oher. If Al decides not to go OT in the first round, than the only good option as a starter at LT would be William Beatty, who you’d have to hope wouldn’t get reached for by a team in the 20s/30s.
by birds'n'raiders on Mar 18, 2009 7:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the staff feels generally confident in Henderson, Barnes, Pears, and Green. All 4 have starting experience at T and 3 of the 4 have starting experience in the ZBS.
The way I see it
LT- Henderson Backup LT- Pears
RT- Barnes Backup RT- Green
I think we are hoping the competition will fuel these guys into success, but Henderson played great at LT toward the end of the season, and although Barnes has great footwork he has trouble with quick DE’s hence his ability to succeed at RT.
by DarthDavis on Mar 18, 2009 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still Crabtree...
I think we should still go Crabtree. Crabtree is labeled as the “best player” in this years draft. In the end, he may be a bust, but when we have a chance to get him, and that position is a need for us, we should get him. I agree that WR isnt a HUGE need, but it is still one that we are looking for a clear #1. Also, drafting crabtree will mimic what the great cowboys dynasty did, lock up your skill positions for years to come. We would have our qb, 2 rb’s, and wr (with other young wrs). Assuming those guys arent huge busts, then we can work on OL (addressed w FA) and Def.
Why would the best player in the draft fall to us? as someone said before, the other teams have far greater needs. Though I have a sneaky feeling, cleveland may grab crabtee before us. If that happens….. at first I wanted an OT, now I am waivering due to the recent signings. However, we could always use a stud OT that will be here for the next 10 years. If not OT, I would say DE, DT, or LB. Yes a DT would help against the run, but what about a pass rushing DE? We have such good corners and a pretty good pass def, that if we could put pressure on the qb, we would have a ton of picks. Since we play a lot of man, putting pressure on the qb and with our corners, will allow the safties and even the LBs to play closer to the line of scrimmage looking for the run. Just my thoughts
by gl12ox05 on Mar 18, 2009 8:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
While I think Raji is a good DT he also played with another pretty good DT in Brace. I think our biggest issue on D was lack of a pass rush, some of that has to do with scheme and some with talent. Im still for grabbing Crabtree if there but the more I think about it the more I would like to see us grab Orakpo or slide down slightly for a LB, Cushing and Matthews both can get to the QB and have non stop motors (plus they are SC guys and Al likes that) or maybe grab Rey and kick Morrison to the outside. I think a WR could be grabbed in the 2-4 rounds.
by nateroddick20 on Mar 18, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I read an article last year I will try and find it but, we had one of the best pass rushes. They measured not just by sacks but by % of throwaways, sacks, hurries, knockdowns, …..essentially all the ways to disrupt the QB, and given the vast majority of the time teams run the ball on us I found it real intriguing.. But to be honest it didn’t really satisfy me because QB’s were more likely to throw the ball away against us mose so then any other team and the reason for that is teams approach our defense with the mentality that if they don’t force things the Raiders will eventually make mistakes and they will win the game. Hence, why teams just run the ball down our throats because they know eventually they are going to score……and they weren’t very worried about our Offense because J-Russ is in the development stage, DMC had turf toe, We were using Bush incorrectly, Fargas doesn’t score TD’s, and Javon was hurt.
But regardless you have good ideas with RAK and Rey
by DarthDavis on Mar 19, 2009 3:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to see that article....
although I agree that a lot of teams went to the approach against us that if they didnt make mistakes, they would still win the game. Maybe I am wrong but it seemed like the qb had way more time to throw the ball than he should have. They had so much time it seemed that the qb had time to read the def, get a hot dog, again read the coverage, seeing there was no one open, then throw the ball away. I believe ANY qb can complete passes if you give them 6+ seconds in the pocket.
If given that much time, qb’s are completing passes, which means safeties are lining up farther away from the line of scrimmage and dropping back into pass coverages, thus opening up more running lanes.
by gl12ox05 on Mar 19, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ask and you shall receive
and it is a NY times article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/sports/football/14score.html
by DarthDavis on Mar 19, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well I'll be damned....
thats an interesting article. The article gave us an adjusted sack rate of 7.7% which comes out as 5th best in the nfl. that number would seem even more impressive since I am assuming our defense was on the field a lot more than the top 5 teams of this stat.
So to adjust my thinking, think about how good this number would be if we had a pass rusher who had 10+ sacks. But that would mean we need less 3 and shorts and more 3rd and longs. Improving the run defense would do that. That is a point for Raji.
Another reason our rate is high is because our secondary is giving our pass rush more time. if we had a d-line that didnt need that extra time, think about all of the extra turnovers we would create.
Lastly, assuming we draft crabtree, I would then assume we would try to build defensive depth with our other picks. We could then use our #1 draft pick next year to go defensive. Run stuffers dont necessarily go as high in the draft
by gl12ox05 on Mar 20, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sign jones, draft crabtree, develop johnny lee....
i like the look of that
by tafkasam on Mar 18, 2009 11:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We can't really make a prediction
on how the draft will go, until the draft is here. The reason for that is because, the raiders can sign whoever they want right now in free agency. I mean if you really look at the whole thing, they can pick up everybody they need right now in free agency.
Some of the possible players they can pick up are:
SS Darren Sharper
DE Jason Taylor
LB Marcus Washington or LB Angelo Crowell or LB Cato June
WR Jerry Porter or WR Torry Holt or WR Marvin Harrison or WR Matt Jones
CB Chris McAlister (if needed)
TE L.J. Smith (if really needed)
C Duke Preston or C Melvin Fowler
by L.A. Raiders on Mar 18, 2009 1:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
our #7 pick...
will have more upside than any of those players. If we did get crabtree, he has more upside than any of the receivers you just mentioned. Porter-sucks, Holt-old with busted knee, harrison-too old, busted knee, and lost it, and jones-sucks. Why waste any money on any of those guys.
The other positions people mentioned to draft were OT and DT, you didnt list any.
The only players on the list worth anything is Sharper (but probably too expensive) and the centers.
by gl12ox05 on Mar 18, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I meant
was that we still draft Crabtree, not get all these player or anything like that.
First, Crabtree will be ours if he is there at #7.
Second, we need a OLB, so that we can have 3 great LB for the raiders. We already have 2 of the 3, because we have Morrison and Howard. So what I am suggesting is to get Angelo Crowell to be the third, as an OLB.
Third, we need a SS or just a S in general. So I was thinking that if we sign Darren Sharper to let him play as SS or FS, depending or where we put Huff, would be really helpful.
Fourth, we need a C, so we need to either get Preston or Melvin Fowler, so that we can get rid of that problem.
Fifth, we need some veteran help for our young recievers, so getting one of the WR I named would help our young recievers gain knowledge, and develop faster.
And lastly, not that we need a DE, but having Jason Taylor playing on the other side of Burgess would be really helpful.
We already have Burgess, who is real good, but playing on the other side of him is Jay Richardson or Trevor Scott, who are both still developing and are both young. If I were to decide on who to start on the other side of Burgess if we don’t sign a DE, it would be Jay Richardson, because to me he is the better DE and will develop way faster than Trevor Scott.
by L.A. Raiders on Mar 18, 2009 2:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
I think Trevor Scott will develop into a better specimen than Jay Richardson given the time. However, Jay Richardson is the better current choice because he is more developed than Scott. Not that he will develop faster.
"It's 20-0. The Raider offensive game plan just changed." - Tom Flores
by Rayder K on Mar 18, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
but, Jay Richardson really showed up when he was called upon and gave in my opinion more than what he was expected to do. I think he might be a solid starter for a couple of years, but you are right maybe trevor scott has more potential than Jay.
by L.A. Raiders on Mar 18, 2009 3:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually think the opposite
I think scott is more polished and richardson is the upside guy. Scott has pretty good moves and hustle, but richardson is huge and if he learns to use his 6’6’’ 280 lbs body better he will be better than scott. But i would like the raiders to bring in a rookie or maybe josh thomas from the colts to bring depth. The raiders this offseason have addressed one thing and that is signing depth which we didnt have last year.
by posey440 on Mar 18, 2009 4:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that
Scott is better be cause he was a little more consistent
he got CLOSE to the OB whenever he was on the field
Richardson on the other hand made bigger plays for us
Nnamdi Asomugha for '09 Pro Bowl!!!!!!
by Jagjivan on Mar 19, 2009 8:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I agree with you
Richardson is a perfect fit for the LE but I fear for Scott not matching up to LT’s on a consistent basis. So they get wore down by Richardson (who is quickly becoming a new favorite of mine) and then they get blown past by Trevor Scott and his infinite agility (one of my other favorite new Raiders and he should have won rookie of the year on the vote on this blog). If only we could morph them into one Tray Scottardson, the new best DE ever!
by DarthDavis on Mar 19, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just realized how I used the word consistent
Trevor Scott has been consistent in his limited time but I fear his consistency going down if he played LT’s on a full time basis. Give him another year backing up Richardson on 3rd downs. And when Burgess leaves he can be our full time pass rusher with a little more bulk and experience.
by DarthDavis on Mar 19, 2009 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
like your idea
it could very well work too. Richardson is such a beast.
"VoilĂ ! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V"- V from "V for Vendetta"
by KA1Z3R on Mar 20, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 














